CHHAJU SINGH SULEKH RAM Vs. BALJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide the present judgment, 5 civil revisions, i.e., CR-5284 to 5287-2004 and 132-2005, shall be disposed of, since common questions of law are involved, as to whether the order passed by the Rent Controller, Khanna, dismissing the application for amendment of the ejectment petition and for impleadment of petitioner No.2, was justified or not. In 3 cases, the orders have been passed on 06.09.2004, by the then Rent Controller, Khanna, Mr. K.K.Goyal, whereas in 2 cases, the orders have been passed on 27.10.2004, by Ms.Priya Sood, another Rent Controller at Khanna. The facts have been taken from CR-5284-2004 titled 'Chhaju Singh Sulekh Ram Family Trust Vs. Baljinder Singh'.

(2.) The primary reasoning which prevailed with both the Rent Controllers was that in view of the amendment of Code of Civil Procedure w.e.f. 01.07.2002, the provisions under Order 6, Rule 17 had been made more stringent. Keeping in view the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties, it was held that the petition was initially filed by the Trust on 05.11.1997, through its Managing Trustee, Chhajusing, through general power of attorney-Praveen Kanwal, against which, an objection had been raised that it was not maintainable. The issues had been framed on 13.08.1998 and the evidence of the landlord had been closed on 06.04.2004. The case was at the fag end and after 7 years, the amendment application had been filed to implead Praveen Prakash Kanwal as petitioner No.2, claiming that he was the landlord independently, vis-a-vis the premises. The said fact had been in the knowledge of the applicant and if allowed, would necessitate retrial of the petitions and no explanation had been given as to why for 7 years the amendment had not been sought earlier. The version that the applicant was a layman and there was an unintentional mistake, was not accepted, as it was noticed that he was an educated person and filing number of petitions and civil suits. Serious prejudice would be caused to the respondent in case the amendment was to be allowed and a entirely new petitioner, who alleges himself to be landlord independently, would be introduced. The fact that in the original petition, not a single word had been said about Praveen Kanwal being the landlord which would lead to changing the entire complexion of the petition. An attempt was being made to substitute the petitioner and the landlord and entirely a new case would be set up and in spite of the fact that law of amendment was liberal but substitution of an entirely new case in place of the original one, was not permissible. The impleadment of Praveen Kanwal in independent capacity could not be held to be formal or necessary amendment, since all the Trustees were not seeking impleadment, which was not the original case and therefore, the application was declined.

(3.) A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that at the first instance, the petition under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, the 'Act') was filed on 08.07.1997, which was amended on 25.05.1999, seeking ejectment of the respondent-tenant from the shop in question by the Trust, through its Managing Trustee, Chhajusing, son of Sulekh Ram Natha Singh Kanwal, through general power of attorney, Praveen Kanwal, son of Chhajusing, who is now the applicant. It was pleaded that the petitioner-Trust is the owner of the premises and Praveen Kanwal was the general power of attorney of the petitioner. The photocopy of the same along with the trust deed was attached with the condition that the original would be produced at the time of evidence. The shop had been let out to the father of the respondent, who was a tenant and thereafter, on account of change of user, ejectment had been sought and that also, on the ground that it had become unfit and unsafe. The tenant had tried to make alterations in the shop and even a DDR had been lodged regarding this fact and therefore, ejectment was sought, apart from the ground of nonpayment of rent. It was further pleaded that Civil Suit, as such, had been filed on 05.11.1997, by the Trust, for permanent injunction, restraining the tenant from making any alterations. Thereafter, application for amendment of the plaint had been filed.